As Frank Cross, usually considered the dean of paleographers, once said to me, students who could not handle the languages went instead into archaeology. Sad but often true, as in Dever’s case.

The interesting thing is that if Rainey and Dever can't get along, it really shows just how fragmented the biblical-archaeological studies spectrum is (both claim to stake the "middle ground" as they fight off "minimalists" and "fundamentalists"). Time permitting, I'll have more to say about this in the future. It really says a lot about the state of the evidence.

3 Comments:

I think there was an article in one of the last couple issues of BAR arguing that the term "biblical archaeology" should be dopped from use alltogether. I can't remember what alternative the author proposed.

It was Dever himself who led the charge against "biblical archaeology" and for several decades he refused to write for BAR. In the last few years he has realized that he sunk his own boat and now writes for BAR. I suspect Rainey's column is the first of a "dialogue" between these two. It wasn't an accident that I used that term.

From a strictly archeological artifact perspective the question should be, "Did the Goddess Have A Husband?"The concept of "The Goddess" is far older than the concept of "The God"."The God" came down to Erope and the Middle East from the far North at the beginning of the Bronze Age.For 25,000 year it was the Goddess of the matralineal tribes and societies, the agriculturalist, etc. that ruled. Her husband was a secondary being. The artifacts say that the male God owes his supremacy to the bronze blade and the horse.The question might also be, when did God get rid of his wife? Or if their is no sex in the Kingdom of God, what are we talking about?Thanks for your time.